Graham v. Home Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Hinman, J.:
It is our view that the warranty, “ while occupied by owner and tenant,” must be construed not only presently but prospectively covering the period of the policy. It is also our view that the context does not indicate that “ or ” was intended for “ and.” There were two dwellings on the farm. The former owner occupied one and the tenant the other at the time of the issuance of the policy. The respective rates for occupancy by the owner and the tenant were different. If there had been no intervening renewal of the policy for the benefit of a subsequent owner, we think there could be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Van Schoick v. . Niagara Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Ripley v. . the &198tna Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Gray v. . Germania Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Hayes v. Saratoga & Washington Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
3Cited by1 opinion
- Baldwin's Bank of Penn Yan v. Farmers' Reliance Mutual InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1933